Still waiting for my Avalon Batch 3 refund, and would like to get back into the mining space. Hopefully HashFast will have some info out by then. Knowing Bitsyncom, I will probably have some time

you are a lucky man. I think time factor is important today. If are the facts on table, we had to discuss carefully about equipment and company. But if are we prepared for a group buy, we can order very quick. Some of first places in order queue, and maybe win a month - see KnC

Fashhash needs to come to the market quick. Anything past october will have to come priced at half of the october knc or bitfury 400gh machines prices to be attractive at all.

+1 or they need to bring some serious power, units pushing 1TH/s min

The hashrate of the miner is pretty much irrellevant unless you need a very high density solution (e.g. for a really big mine), since you can just buy several smaller miners to make up the desired hashrate. The factors that are important are GH/s per $ and GH/s per kWh (+ timescale of course).

Anyway, if Uniquify has spun Hashfast a line of 28nm being good for 4Ghz... then past experience seems to indicate a SHA ASIC will have an absolute maximum of about 1.33Ghz on that, and may need to be dropped to 1Ghz or below to meet power targets. 100 engine chip at 4Ghz, too good to be true. 400 engine chip at 1Ghz, too big to be true.

We believe one previously announced effort at 28nm is using eASIC, so their cores are *much* bigger than they have to be. Of course their startup costs are much lower too, but it impacts the performance a lot. Look at the η-factor for other 28nm designs.

We believe one previously announced effort at 28nm is using eASIC, so their cores are *much* bigger than they have to be. Of course their startup costs are much lower too, but it impacts the performance a lot. Look at the η-factor for other 28nm designs. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119668.0

The η-factor thing is total nonsense for ASICs if they're thermally limited.

Also, KnC is using a standard cell design, not an eASIC 'easycopy' or whatever. eASIC is just one of the companies they work with.

Looks like you have setup a nice bunch of socks to flood down the important questions on this thread, congrats.

And while I'm here... Any word on this hillarious twitter account deletion ?

I must say I am interested in hearing what happened with the twitter account as well.

I will be optimistic and think HashFast is trying to figure that out as well, while their "marketing" person is shrugging and hoping they will forget the incident lol.

On another note, please consider calling your unit something drastically different than what VMC calls their unit: the "Fast-Hash-One." I confused HashFast with VMC for a sec and almost preordered from the wrong company .

We believe one previously announced effort at 28nm is using eASIC, so their cores are *much* bigger than they have to be. Of course their startup costs are much lower too, but it impacts the performance a lot.

There was speculation that KnC was coursing towards an eASIC solution, in part because of OrSoC's relationship with them. This has subsequently been denied, as indicated in a post below yours.

There are also rumors, which you probably have heard yourself situated as you are, of private development seeking an eASIC solution. This, of course, would be partially motivated by such extant advantages as indicated under the -Cryption section of their cores page:http://www.easic.com/easic-ez-ip-cores/

We believe one previously announced effort at 28nm is using eASIC, so their cores are *much* bigger than they have to be. Of course their startup costs are much lower too, but it impacts the performance a lot. Look at the η-factor for other 28nm designs. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119668.0

The η-factor thing is total nonsense for ASICs if they're thermally limited.

Also, KnC is using a standard cell design, not an eASIC 'easycopy' or whatever. eASIC is just one of the companies they work with.

"The easicopy design flow is shown below. At the front end it requires a eASIC Nextreme or Nextreme-2 synthesized netlist andan SDC timing constraints file. After initial synthesis, the design is taken through a traditional cell-based ASIC flow by eASICengineers. This includes Design For Test (DFT) insertion and synthesis, and then back-end physical implementation which includesfloorplanning, I/O ring design, power mesh design, timing driven place and route, timing closure, parasitic extraction, final STA, andtapeout readiness."

So theoretically eASIC would be a partner for a standard cell ASIC too. But I would not choose them for a 28nm implementation, because they have no proven first time right tape-outs in this technology node and there is a hard learning curve for that kind of implementations.

On another note, please consider calling your unit something drastically different than what VMC calls their unit: the "Fast-Hash-One." I confused HashFast with VMC for a sec and almost preordered from the wrong company

On another note, please consider calling your unit something drastically different than what VMC calls their unit: the "Fast-Hash-One." I confused HashFast with VMC for a sec and almost preordered from the wrong company

Haha I think anything with 'bit', 'ASIC', 'hash', or 'coin' within a name, and general relevance to speed, or power is self explanatory within this discipline. You could probably create quite an amusing random ASIC co. name development tool using this principal

Make my day! Say thanks if you found me helpful BTC Address --->1487ThaKjezGA6SiE8fvGcxbgJJu6XWtZp

On another note, please consider calling your unit something drastically different than what VMC calls their unit: the "Fast-Hash-One." I confused HashFast with VMC for a sec and almost preordered from the wrong company

Haha I think anything with 'bit', 'ASIC', 'hash', or 'coin' within a name, and general relevance to speed, or power is self explanatory within this discipline. You could probably create quite an amusing random ASIC co. name development tool using this principal